Vladimir Sadekov
There are many so-called "non-obvious" criminal offenses that can come as an unpleasant surprise to an honest entrepreneur. It is well known that nothing disrupts a person’s routine and balance more than information about being suspected of a crime. In this regard, honest entrepreneurs are even more vulnerable than experienced violators because they often make mistakes either due to ignorance or excessive trust. Unlike experienced offenders who already know what to do in such situations, so-called newcomers tend to panic, get lost in uncertainty, and worsen their situation by making rash decisions.
Many entrepreneurs, being fighters by nature, instinctively try to overcome uncertainty through active measures, relying on their own understanding of the situation—often based on a university law course, books, or even movies. For them, this is just another business challenge that they believe can be solved using familiar business tactics. Unfortunately, these actions—essentially self-directed legal maneuvers—often lead to even bigger problems.
Defending oneself is not a debate in a literary club, not a contest of logic or rhetoric—it is a legally established set of procedural methods that create opportunities for achieving the desired result.
The first thing to understand is that being a suspect is a procedural status that grants certain rights and imposes obligations. It may sound surprising, but some entrepreneurs are unaware—and are not necessarily supposed to know—that ignoring or misusing this status only worsens their position in the legal proceedings.
For example, suppose the CEO of a construction company is summoned for interrogation as a suspect in a case related to agreements or decisions that harm competition. Under Article 400 of the Estonian Penal Code, entering into agreements, making decisions, or engaging in coordinated actions among entrepreneurs with the aim of harming competition—or causing actual harm to competition—is punishable by a fine or up to one year in prison. In other words, if competitors in a particular industry make agreements regarding pricing, contract terms, participation in tenders, deadlines, or other conditions, they may find themselves facing criminal charges. While such an offense may not seem obvious to an entrepreneur, it carries serious legal consequences. Moreover, both responsible individuals and the legal entity itself may be held accountable.
Upon receiving a summons for questioning, entrepreneurs often make the mistake of meeting with competitors to coordinate testimonies, preparing certain documents, and scrambling in an effort to prove to the investigators that the allegations are unfounded. However, they may not realize that all these frantic actions can be documented through operational and investigative measures or proven in other ways. As a result, instead of mitigating the issue, they create additional problems, such as document fabrication or witness tampering. For example, attempting to persuade a witness to change their statement is considered undue influence, which carries criminal liability under Article 317 of the Estonian Penal Code.
Another common example is the widespread practice of selling debt-ridden companies to so-called professional liquidators. Some entrepreneurs, believing they have no better option, attempt to resolve their company’s problems through bankruptcy proceedings by selling the firm along with its debts. The notarial sale agreement may openly disclose the existence of the debt and even include a full transfer of accounting records. Unfortunately, this does not fully protect the seller from future claims or criminal prosecution. If the debt involves obligations to the state, the tax authority is likely to conduct administrative checks and may hold the board member who sold the company accountable. If the investigation finds evidence of mismanagement, asset dissipation, or failure to fulfill obligations—such as not filing for bankruptcy in time—criminal liability under Articles 381 or 384 of the Estonian Penal Code may arise.
Of course, we are not generalizing, but experience shows that panicking individuals become easy prey for investigators due to their own behavior. While this may be beneficial to uncovering the truth and upholding justice, excessive anxiety often leads investigators to develop even deeper suspicions—sometimes exceeding the initial allegations. As a result, such entrepreneurs find themselves having to justify their actions and prove their innocence, no matter how absurd that may seem.
A prime example of such anxiety is giving testimony without understanding the consequences. Many suspects feel the need to speak out, explain themselves, and convince the investigator of their innocence. However, during a long monologue—or conversely, due to fear and confusion—suspects often reinforce the investigator’s belief that they have something to hide and are deeply afraid, prompting further scrutiny.
One of the worst mistakes you can make is conducting your own investigation. Remember—you are not allowed to follow, monitor, or record others without their consent unless you are directly involved in the conversation.
Additionally, falsifying or destroying any documents is strongly discouraged.
The primary task of a business executive who has received unpleasant notice is to verify the availability of necessary documentation. The entrepreneur must have a clear and accurate understanding of what happened. This requires:
A. Proper coordination with the accounting departments responsible for document management in the disputed area. Request all relevant documents immediately.
B. Obtaining explanations from employees. Request written statements from relevant personnel, specifying all significant circumstances.
C. Collecting and preserving video or audio recordings, especially if there is a risk of their disappearance. Make all necessary inquiries, identify locations of nearby surveillance cameras, and gather essential evidence.
D. Consulting experts who can provide an objective assessment of the technical aspects of the dispute. This could be an auditor, a doctor, an engineer, or another relevant specialist. Their analysis should be based on factual evidence and should not be influenced by legal interpretations.
E. Deciding on an active or passive defense strategy. For this, you need an experienced criminal defense attorney. Do not withhold information from your attorney; otherwise, your defense will be ineffective. The choice between silence and providing explanations should be based on legal strategy. Sometimes, remaining silent is the best course of action, while in other cases, it is beneficial to allow investigators to verify your version of events. In such situations, it is crucial to present investigators with tangible evidence that can help prove your innocence. This may involve witness statements, documentary evidence, or other supporting materials. You and your defense attorney should determine the best approach.
This means that after setting a strategic defense goal and developing a defense plan, you must use procedural opportunities to achieve it. Being proactive does not mean panicking; rather, it means presenting exculpatory evidence to investigators at the right time and in the correct procedural form. Only evidence directly relevant to the case will be considered.
A legal dispute is not about morality or immorality, it is about whether an act meets the objective and subjective elements of a criminal offense.
Finally, if you choose to testify, your statements must be consistent and credible throughout the investigation. If your testimony changes from one interrogation to another, your credibility will suffer.
Ultimately, investigative procedures require cooperation with your defense attorney and a rational approach to case management. This means actively engaging with your legal counsel, taking the time to discuss the case, and not avoiding difficult questions.
